Yes, and the key word is know, not just a fear.

It's not about FEAR that force 'may' be used, it's about reasonably/rationally knowing that force is going to be used. Fear is an emotion that may lead to a need to rationally observe and measure all the things in one's environment to determine if that fear is objectively rational or not.

I received an armed robbery that turned into a battery with a deadly weapon. I had no illusions that the gun pointed at my face would not be used. While he was patting me down for money in my pockets I was calculating my move, die fighting or die just sitting there. As soon as he reached for the car keys the gun moved past my face and we ended up wrestling for the gun, me banging his arm against the steering wheel. He being the stronger of the 2 of us, plus my grip being mostly baggy hoody sleeve, he won. He hit my in the face with the gun and ran. Had I won the wrestling match he would have died right there. My actions were moral and rational in my opinion.

The morality of an Objectivist flows from the philosophy of rational self interest, Objectivism does not flow from morality. If a preemptive use of force is in response to a known and certain planned aggression of another, and pre-emptive force will prevent the aggressive force, it is moral within a rationally objectively sense. Whether that fit's another's morality or not is of no consequence.

I don't think that knowing that another is going to strike you in the nose, requires an Objectivist to stand there and wait until he's been hit in the nose. That wouldn't make rational sense except in some progressive twisted martyr morality.

If it wasn't an emergency I would attempt to get some clarification from the parent and let them know I was concerned about the kids health.

A lot of this is really circumstantial but it's not like the objectivist response is crazy. If you see someone in immanent danger you can help them. You don't have to, and you shouldn't act irrationally but you can.

Morality immorality is at all levels. I thought in this case we were discussing nations and the highest immorality, slave/ dictatorship nations. So the US has the moal right to declare war on say nazi Germany even if Germany had not attacked the US. The moral justification resolved, now the nation determines the human costs to its citizens and the economic cost and weighs them in deciding to act. Rand stated a nuclear warhead is no different than a club. The result is death and destruction to incapacitate the rogue govt and to get its people to renounce support for their govt.

I think a better word is defense rather than retaliation. Retaliation implies a get back at, where defense implies immediacy. But +1 for AR quote.

But more, Objectivist are free to form associations and contract with others to provide a stronger defense. There is no value from defensive force obtained either individually or association wise, other than the continuation of one's life or the free use of one's own property.

"Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force." AR, Virtue of Selfishness

Of course this also goes back to if it is healthy for you as an individual to do so.

If you know that one is initiating force against the other, and the victim wants help, then you are justified. If you don't know, then you'll have to use your best judgment.

"PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II . . .RAND: Certainly.PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right—though not the duty—to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other “slave pen.” Correct?RAND: Correct. A dictatorship—a country that violates the rights of its own citizens—is an outlaw and can claim no rights."
An Objectivist would weigh the loss of life of its soldiers against the initiation of attacking a rogue nation, looking first to other means, such as economic boycott which is consistent with Capitalism

Maybe you could look at it as third party self defense. The Japanese may not have initiated force against the crew, but they did threaten and initiate force against others.

I always say better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

I do not either, but I also do not accept the "nanny state" and their interpretation of the morality of self-defense, especially in light of Castle Rock v. Gonzales. I am just pointing out its existence. IMO a person should defend themselves as soon as they know a threat to be imminent. It is better to be held by 12 than carried by 6.

I am not sure either. I do not consider myself a "true" Objectivist. If I were to label myself I would be a Religious Conservative Libertarian Patriot who applies the logic of Objectivism in my day to day life.

Oh! please watch "Eye For An Eye," written by an Objectivist and Rand's lawyer at one time-
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116260/
but now you are getting into theory of law.
A person living in a society gives up their right to be judge, jury and prosecutor. They can only act for immediate self-defense, based on Locke's Social Contract.

A nation may take action against a rogue nation